The Fleischner Society Guidelines for management of solid nodules were published in 2005, and separate guidelines for subsolid nodules were issued in 2013. Since then, new information has become available; therefore, the guidelines have been revised to reflect current thinking on nodule management. The revised guidelines incorporate several substantive changes that reflect current thinking on the management of small nodules. The minimum threshold size for routine follow-up has been increased, and recommended follow-up intervals are now given as a range rather than as a precise time period to give radiologists, clinicians, and patients greater discretion to accommodate individual risk factors and preferences. The guidelines for solid and subsolid nodules have been combined in one simplified table, and specific recommendations have been included for multiple nodules. These guidelines represent the consensus of the Fleischner Society, and as such, they incorporate the opinions of a multidisciplinary international group of thoracic radiologists, pulmonologists, surgeons, pathologists, and other specialists. Changes from the previous guidelines issued by the Fleischner Society are based on new data and accumulated experience. Table. These are followed by graded ratings of each recommendation using the American College of Chest Physicians recommendations for evidence grading in clinical guidelines (9). Additional explanations are provided regarding the rationale for each recommendation, which is based on the consensus of a multidisciplinary team and a systematic review of the literature, further details of which are included in Appendix E1 [online]. The minimum threshold size for recommending follow-up is based on an estimated cancer risk in a nodule on the order of 1% or greater. This criterion is necessarily arbitrary, and we recognize that a higher threshold may be considered appropriate in some environments and that this threshold will ultimately depend on social and economic factors. Several general considerations regarding technical aspects of using these recommendations are also presented. Finally, in Appendix E1 (online), additional information regarding methods and risk factors is given. detected at CT in adult patients who are at least 35 years old. Separate guidelines have been issued for lung cancer screening, such as those from the American College of Radiology (ACR), and we support the use of those guidelines when interpreting the results of CT screening (8). Specific recommendations are provided for patients with multiple solid and subsolid nodules, and several other commonly encountered clinical situations are addressed.These guidelines are not intended for use in patients with known primary cancers who are at risk for metastases, nor are they intended for use in immunocompromised patients who are at risk for infection; in these patients, treatment should be based on the specific clinical situation. Also, because lung cancer is rare in children and adults younger than 35 years, these guidelines are no...

No abstract

we suggest that no additional diagnostic evaluation need be performed (Grade 2C) .Remark : This recommendation applies only to solid nodules. For guidance about follow-up of subsolid nodules, see Recommendations 6.5.1 to 6.5.4 . 2.3.3.In the individual with an indeterminate nodule that is identifi ed by chest radiography, we recommend that CT of the chest should be performed (preferably with thin sections Objectives: The objective of this article is to update previous evidence-based recommendations for evaluation and management of individuals with solid pulmonary nodules and to generate new recommendations for those with nonsolid nodules. Methods: We updated prior literature reviews, synthesized evidence, and formulated recommendations by using the methods described in the "Methodology for Development of Guidelines for Lung Cancer" in the American College of Chest Physicians Lung Cancer Guidelines, 3rd ed. Results: We formulated recommendations for evaluating solid pulmonary nodules that measure . 8 mm in diameter, solid nodules that measure Յ 8 mm in diameter, and subsolid nodules. The recommendations stress the value of assessing the probability of malignancy, the utility of imaging tests, the need to weigh the benefi ts and harms of different management strategies (nonsurgical biopsy, surgical resection, and surveillance with chest CT imaging), and the importance of eliciting patient preferences. Conclusions: Individuals with pulmonary nodules should be evaluated and managed by estimating the probability of malignancy, performing imaging tests to better characterize the lesions, evaluating the risks associated with various management alternatives, and eliciting their preferences for management. CHEST 2013; 143(5)(Suppl):e93S-e120SAbbreviations: AAH 5 atypical adenomatous hyperplasia; ACCP 5 American College of Chest Physicians; AIS 5 adenocarcinoma in situ; EBUS 5 endobronchial ultrasound; ENB 5 electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy; FDG 5 fl uorodeoxyglucose; HU 5 Hounsfi eld unit; LR 5 likelihood ratio; SPECT 5 single-photon emission CT; TBB 5 transbronchial biopsy; TTNB 5 transthoracic needle biopsy; VATS 5 video-assisted thoracic surgery; VBN 5 virtual bronchoscopy navigation; VDT 5 volume doubling time

Lung nodules are detected very commonly on computed tomographic (CT) scans of the chest, and the ability to detect very small nodules improves with each new generation of CT scanner. In reported studies, up to 51% of smokers aged 50 years or older have pulmonary nodules on CT scans. However, the existing guidelines for follow-up and management of noncalcified nodules detected on nonscreening CT scans were developed before widespread use of multi-detector row CT and still indicate that every indeterminate nodule should be followed with serial CT for a minimum of 2 years. This policy, which requires large numbers of studies to be performed at considerable expense and with substantial radiation exposure for the affected population, has not proved to be beneficial or cost-effective. During the past 5 years, new information regarding prevalence, biologic characteristics, and growth rates of small lung cancers has become available; thus, the authors believe that the time-honored requirement to follow every small indeterminate nodule with serial CT should be revised. In this statement, which has been approved by the Fleischner Society, the pertinent data are reviewed, the authors' conclusions are summarized, and new guidelines are proposed for follow-up and management of small pulmonary nodules detected on CT scans.

This report is to complement the original Fleischner Society recommendations for incidentally detected solid nodules by proposing a set of recommendations specifically aimed at subsolid nodules. The development of a standardized approach to the interpretation and management of subsolid nodules remains critically important given that peripheral adenocarcinomas represent the most common type of lung cancer, with evidence of increasing frequency. Following an initial consideration of appropriate terminology to describe subsolid nodules and a brief review of the new classification system for peripheral lung adenocarcinomas sponsored by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC), American Thoracic Society (ATS), and European Respiratory Society (ERS), six specific recommendations were made, three with regard to solitary subsolid nodules and three with regard to multiple subsolid nodules. Each recommendation is followed first by the rationales underlying the recommendation and then by specific pertinent remarks. Finally, issues for which future research is needed are discussed. The recommendations are the result of careful review of the literature now available regarding subsolid nodules. Given the complexity of these lesions, the current recommendations are more varied than the original Fleischner Society guidelines for solid nodules. It cannot be overemphasized that these guidelines must be interpreted in light of an individual's clinical history. Given the frequency with which subsolid nodules are encountered in daily clinical practice, and notwithstanding continuing controversy on many of these issues, it is anticipated that further refinements and modifications to these recommendations will be forthcoming as information continues to emerge from ongoing research.

The progression of lung disease in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) was evaluated with chest radiography. The severity and extent of the various radiographic changes were scored with the Chrispin or the Birmingham method, which involves the use of imprecise and subjective terms, such as line shadows, large pulmonary shadows, and nodular cystic lesions. Although computed tomography (CT) has been shown to be helpful in the evaluation of lung disease in CF, no scoring system or other objective criteria have been developed for the evaluation of the wide range of pulmonary changes in these patients. A CT scoring system was devised that incorporates all of the changes seen in the lungs of patients with CF. Such a scoring system may facilitate objective evaluation of existing and newly developed therapeutic regimens and may be a valuable tool in the preoperative evaluation of patients being considered for lobectomy or bullectomy and in the selection of patients for lung transplantation.

No abstract

This article proposes codes for the primary tumor categories of adenocarcinoma in situ (AIS) and minimally invasive adenocarcinoma (MIA) and a uniform way to measure tumor size in part-solid tumors for the eighth edition of the tumor, node, and metastasis classification of lung cancer. In 2011, new entities of AIS, MIA, and lepidic predominant adenocarcinoma were defined, and they were later incorporated into the 2015 World Health Organization classification of lung cancer. To fit these entities into the T component of the staging system, the Tis category is proposed for AIS, with Tis (AIS) specified if it is to be distinguished from squamous cell carcinoma in situ (SCIS), which is to be designated Tis (SCIS). We also propose that MIA be classified as T1mi. Furthermore, the use of the invasive size for T descriptor size follows a recommendation made in three editions of the Union for International Cancer Control tumor, node, and metastasis supplement since 2003. For tumor size, the greatest dimension should be reported both clinically and pathologically. In nonmucinous lung adenocarcinomas, the computed tomography (CT) findings of ground glass versus solid opacities tend to correspond respectively to lepidic versus invasive patterns seen pathologically. However, this correlation is not absolute; so when CT features suggest nonmucinous AIS, MIA, and lepidic predominant adenocarcinoma, the suspected diagnosis and clinical staging should be regarded as a preliminary assessment that is subject to revision after pathologic evaluation of resected specimens. The ability to predict invasive versus noninvasive size on the basis of solid versus ground glass components is not applicable to mucinous AIS, MIA, or invasive mucinous adenocarcinomas because they generally show solid nodules or consolidation on CT.